Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.15 seconds)

Kartick Chandra Mallik And Anr. vs Rani Harsha Mukhi Dasi, Executrix To ... on 2 April, 1943

14. This case was discussed in Kamal Kumari Choudhurani v. Chandra Roy ('98) 2 C.W.N. 229 with reference to the need for making the co-owners parties to the suit, and distinguished on the ground that in the former case actual khas possession of the land was desired, while in the later case mere power for joint collection of rent was prayed for. Thus prior to the recent case of 1936 this appears to be the only one clearly dealing with facts similar to those in the present case relating to a tenure under more than one estate, and the decision favours the view that in such a case annulment of that portion of the tenure which is held under the estate sold for arrears of revenue can be made. Prom the history of the sale laws it would be indeed strange if proprietors of estates could create an interest which would defeat the prime object thereof, namely the safeguarding of the public revenues. Enforcement of collection of the revenue by means of sale of estates was introduced by the British, and a fundamental necessity of the provision for such enforcement by sale of estate is that what is sold shall be the estate originally created unchanged except as allowed by the law. Article 6 of the Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1 of 1793, lays down the provision for sale for default and in Article 9 of the same regulation it is laid down that:
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 8 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Sushila Choudhari vs . State & Ors. on 28 September, 2021

In view of legal heirs report and since no objection was given by respondent no.2 (on her behalf and on behalf of respondent no.3 & 4), in favour of petitioner, it is hereby ordered that succession certificate be issued in favour of petitioner namely Smt. Sushila Choudhari for UFLEX Ltd. and KEI Industries Ltd. in the form of _____________________________________________________________________________________ SC No.18/2020 Sushila Choudhari Vs. State & Ors.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pathak Harbans Singh And Ors. vs Thakur Jagdishwar Dayal Singh And Ors. on 17 January, 1929

In Sushila Sundari Chowdhurani v. Tarak Chandra Roy Chowdhuri 97 Ind. Cas. 489; A.I.R. 1927 Cal. 51 it was held by the Calcutta High Court that when one of the recorded tenants is dead the landlord must proceed either against the recorded tenants including the one who is dead, if he is not aware of the fact that he is dead, or against the recorded tenants who are in actual occupation of the tenure. It was contended in that case that the heirs of the deceased tenant were bound to notify their succession under Section 15 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; and not having done so, were not entitled to take the point that the decree was not a rent decree. It was held by the Calcutta High Court that the omission to notify their succession did not affect their interest in the tenure. The question then which I have to consider in this appeal is whether defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were put forward by defendant No. 5 as her representative in her transaction with the landlord.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1